You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

BECAUSE, BASED ON A LINE OF DUTY REPORT, THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND LOCATION OF PETITIONER’S SLIP AND FALL, THE CITY WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY A DELAY IN FILING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE LATE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim in a slip and fall case should have been granted, despite petitioner’s failure to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay. The city had timely notice of the incident based on a line of duty report, and the city, because it had timely notice, was not prejudiced by the delay:

The line-of-duty injury report prepared and filed shortly after the petitioner’s accident provided the City with timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim. Further, its specificity regarding the location and circumstances of the incident permitted the City to readily infer that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed … .

Furthermore, as the City acquired timely knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, the petitioner met his initial burden of showing that the City would not be prejudiced by the late notice of claim … . In response to the petitioner’s initial showing, the City failed to come forward with particularized evidence demonstrating that the late notice of claim substantially prejudiced its ability to defend the claim on the merits … .

Since the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim and no substantial prejudice to the City was demonstrated, the petitioner’s failure to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the notice of claim did not serve as a bar to granting leave to serve a late notice of claim … .  Matter of Brown v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03693, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: Where the municipality, by virtue of a report, has timely and specific knowledge of a potential claim, a petition for leave to file a late notice of claim may be granted even where, as here, the petitioner does not have a reasonable excuse for the delay.

 

,

BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED ON THE FOIL CAUSE OF ACTION, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LITIGATION COSTS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT MUCH OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATION WAS BY PRO BONO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees and litigation costs because petitioner had substantially prevailed on its FOIL causes of action. The fact that much of the legal representation was pro bono was not a bar to recovery:

… [T]he petitioner substantially prevailed on its FOIL cause of action, and the Town had no reasonable basis for denying access to the responsive documents. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs incurred on the FOIL cause of action … . The fact that much of the petitioner’s representation was undertaken by pro bono counsel did not affect the petitioner’s entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs under the statute … . Matter of Ateres Bais Yaakov Academy of Rockland v Town of Clarkstown, 2023 NY Slip Op 03692, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: A party who “substantially prevails” on a FOIL cause action is entitled to attorney’s fees and litigation costs, even when much of the legal work was done by pro bono counsel.

 

, ,

IN THIS SIDEWALK/CURB SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION OR CAUSE THE CONDITION BY SPECIAL USE (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this sidewalk/curb slip and fall case, determined (1) the defendant village did not have written notice of the alleged dangerous condition. and (2), the defendant abutting property owner did create the condition or cause the condition by special use. Therefore the complaint against both defendants should have been dismissed:

… [T]he Village correctly contends that, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, it was not required to establish both that it lacked prior written notice of the defect and that it had not created the defect … . Rather, upon the Village’s prima facie showing that it lacked prior written notice of the defect, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate that an exception to the prior written notice statute applied … . As the plaintiff did not meet this burden, the court should have granted the Village’s motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against it.

… Scipione [defendant abutting property owner] demonstrated, prima facie, that he did not create the defect, that he did not cause the defect to occur because of a special use, and that the relevant section of the Village Charter did not make abutting landowners liable for injuries caused by sidewalk defects … . With respect to the issue of special use, Scipione’s evidence showed that the intended use of the step on which the plaintiff allegedly fell was “the normal intended use of the public way,” and that he did not “derive[ ] a special benefit from that property unrelated to the public use” … . Morales v Village of Ossining, 2023 NY Slip Op 03690, Second Dept 7-5-23

Similar “written notice” issue and result in O’Connor v City of Long Beach, 2023 NY Slip Op 03702, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: Here the village demonstrated it did not have written notice of the sidewalk/curb defect which caused plaintiffs fall. Therefore the action against the village should have been dismissed.

Practice Point: Here the abutting property owner demonstrated he did not create the sidewalk/curb defect and did not cause the defect by special use. Therefore the action against the property owner should have been dismissed.

 

, , , , ,

THE AFFIDAVITS AND REAL ESTATE CONTRACT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH UTTERLY REFUTED THE ALLEGATIONS OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging unlawful discrimination in a real estate deal should not have been dismissed because the documentary evidence did not utterly refute the allegations in the complaint. After the real estate purchase offer was signed by both parties and the down payment was made, defendant’s attorney returned the down payment check with a letter saying that the defendant was no longer interested in selling to the plaintiff:

Here, neither the affidavits submitted in support of the defendant’s motion nor the purported contract between the defendant and another purchaser constituted documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … , and the defendant’s evidentiary submissions were “insufficient to utterly refute the plaintiff’s factual allegations” … . Moreover, accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action alleging unlawful discrimination pursuant to Administrative Code § 8-107(5). Jeffrey v Collins, 2023 NY Slip Op 03686, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: The affidavits and real estate contract submitted in support of the motion to dismiss did not utterly refute the allegations in the complaint and therefore did not support dismissal of the complaint based on documentary evidence.

 

,

IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION PRACTICES DOES NOT PROVE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THE AREA WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant City of New York did not demonstrate when the area where plaintiff slipped and fell was last cleaned or inspected. Therefore the city did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish … that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous snow and ice condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion did not show when the staircase was last cleaned or inspected in relation to when the subject accident occurred, but rather merely described their general cleaning and inspection practices for the staircase … . Islam v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03685. Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: Once again an appellate court reiterates that proof of general cleaning or inspection practices does not prove a lack of constructive notice of the condition which caused a slip and fall.

 

, ,

THE PROOF THE FORECLOSURE NOTICE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage company in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance the the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he copy of the notice contains no indication that it was sent by registered or certified mail, or by first-class mail … . Nor is there “[a] copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute” … . … [The affiant] did not attest to having any personal knowledge of, or familiarity with, [the company’s] actual standard mailing procedures during the relevant time period, which were designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Accordingly, [the affiant’s] assertion in his affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notice was sent to the defendant on March 14, 2013, at the address of the mortgaged premises, “by registered or certified and first-class mail,” was unsubstantiated and conclusory … . Ditech Servicing, LLC v McFadden, 2023 NY Slip Op 03452, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Yet another instance of the failure to prove the notice of foreclosure was mailed in accordance with RPAPL 1304.

 

, , ,

THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED CLAIMANT’S INJURY, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PROTECT CLAIMANT WHILE IN FOSTER CARE AND THE TIME THE CLAIM AROSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the Notice of Claim in this Child Victims Act proceeding sufficiently described claimant’s injury, the state’s failure to protect claimant while in foster care, and the time when the claim arose:

… [T]he claim sufficiently provided the defendant with a description of the manner in which the claimant was injured, and how the defendant was negligent in allegedly failing to protect the claimant from sexual abuse while a resident in a state-certified foster care facility. The claimant is not required to set forth the evidentiary facts underlying the allegations of negligence in order to satisfy the section 11(b) “nature of the claim” requirement … . As the claim is sufficiently detailed to allow the defendant to investigate and ascertain its liability, it satisfies the nature of the claim requirement of Court of Claims Act § 11(b)… .

… The claim alleges that the claimant was sexually abused repeatedly in 1992 and 1993, on numerous and regular occasions, including conduct taking place in his room three to four times a week. This Court has stated recently in the context of the CVA, that “[w]e recognize that in matters of sexual abuse involving minors, as recounted by survivors years after the fact, dates and times are sometimes approximate and incapable of calendrical exactitude” … . Thus a claimant commencing a claim pursuant to the CVA is not required to allege the exact date on which the sexual abuse occurred … . As the claim here sufficiently alleges the time when the abuse occurred, the Court of Claims properly declined to dismiss the claim on that ground … . Davila v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03451, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: In this Child Victims Act case against the state alleging the failure to protect claimant in foster care, the Notice of Claim sufficiently alleged the injury, defendant’s negligence and the time the claim arose.

 

, , ,

AN ATTORNEY’S REFERENCE IN AN EMAIL TO A NONPARTY AS A “WIFE BEATER” WAS ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED AS PERTINENT TO THE DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a statement in an email written by an attorney in a divorce action, referring to plaintiff as a wife beater, was pertinent to the divorce action and was absolutely privileged:

The defendant Dina S. Kaplan is an attorney who represented the defendant Eric Dorfman in a divorce action (hereinafter the divorce action). Kaplan allegedly represented to the court in the divorce action, including court personnel, that the plaintiff, an attorney and a nonparty to the divorce action, was the boyfriend of Dorfman’s wife. In an email exchange between Kaplan and Herbert Adler, an attorney representing Dorfman’s wife in the divorce action, Kaplan allegedly made a defamatory statement about the plaintiff, referring to him as a “wife beater . . . who is in criminal prosecution.” In addition to Adler, the email was sent to court personnel and other attorneys. * * *

… [U]nder the extremely liberal test of pertinency, Kaplan’s statement allegedly referring to the plaintiff as a “wife beater . . . who is in criminal prosecution” was pertinent to the divorce action and, thus, is absolutely privileged. The email exchange between Kaplan and Adler was initially focused on a dispute over Dorfman’s financial ability to pay his wife maintenance and child support. The conversation turned, however, to the behavior of the parties to the divorce action while caring for their children, and Kaplan’s statement that the plaintiff is a “wife beater . . . who is in criminal prosecution” was responsive and therefore relevant to the issue of the parties’ behavior … . Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the statement was “so outrageously out of context as to permit one to conclude, from the mere fact that the statement was uttered, that it was motivated by no other desire than to defame” the plaintiff, who was not among the participants in the conversation, was not otherwise mentioned in the email exchange, and was not even directly identified in the statement … . Davidoff v Kaplan, 2023 NY Slip Op 03450, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: If a defamatory statement made by a divorce attorney is pertinent to the divorce action, the statement is absolutely privileged.

 

,

VACATING A NOTE OF ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME AS MARKING A CASE OFF PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404; WHEN A NOTE OF ISSUE IS VACATED, THE ACTION REVERTS TO A PRE-NOTE OF ISSUE STATUS AND CAN BE RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT MEETING THE STRINGENT CPLR 3404 REQUIREMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted. The note of issue had been vacated but the action had not been marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404. Therefore the criteria for restoring an action that had been marked off for more than a year did not apply:

Pursuant to CPLR 3404, “[a] case . . . marked ‘off’ or struck from the calendar . . . and not restored within one year thereafter, shall be deemed abandoned and shall be dismissed without costs for neglect to prosecute.” “A plaintiff seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar more than one year after it has been marked ‘off,’ and after the case has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must demonstrate a [potentially] meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendant” … .

Here, the order … vacating the note of issue was not equivalent to an order marking “off” or striking the case from the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 … . Thus, CPLR 3404 did not apply “because the case reverted to its pre-note of issue status once the note of issue was vacated” … As it is undisputed that there was neither a 90-day demand served upon the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3216 nor an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, and that discovery is complete, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar … . Carrero v Pena, 2023 NY Slip Op 03448, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Restoring an action to the calendar after it has been marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404 for more than a year is subject to the stringent requirements of CPLR 3404. But vacating a note of issue, as opposed to marking off the case, restores the action to pre-note of issue status and the action can be restored without meeting the CPLR 3404 requirements because CPLR 3404 is not applicable.

 

​REMOVING SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS, ETC. FROM THE WORKSITE WAS “ANCILLARY” TO THE RENOVATION WORK AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S FALLING OFF THE TOP OF THE VAN WHERE HE WAS LOADING THE EQUIPMENT WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s task of removing equipment (scaffolds, ladders, poles, etc.) from the worksite and loading them onto the top of a van was ancillary to the renovation work and therefore encompassed by Labor Law 240(1). Plaintiff fell from the roof of the van:

… [T]he defendants’ submissions failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff’s activity in removing equipment from the worksite and loading it onto the van was not performed as part of the larger renovation project that CDI had been hired to complete on the premises, including roofing and shingling work. The plaintiff’s role in removing the equipment after it had been used by the plaintiff and his CDI colleagues was an act “ancillary” to the alteration of the structure at the property, and protected under Labor Law § 240(1) … .

The defendants also failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that climbing on the roof of the van was not necessary to the task of securing the equipment on the roof, nor did they demonstrate that no safety device enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) would have prevented the plaintiff’s fall. Ramones v 425 County Rd., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 03489, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Removing scaffolding, ladders, etc. after use on the worksite was “ancillary” to the renovation work and therefore protected by Labor Law 240(1).

Practice Point: Falling from the top of a van where equipment removed from the worksite was being loaded may be compensable under Labor Law 240(1) (there was a question of fact on that issue).

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy